the key

[Wickerman]

In recent times there have been examples of killers who were earlier questioned by police, after having been brought in, and let go only to have been later identified as the actual murderer. It has happened, no question.

So on that basis alone there may be reason to ponder, but it goes no further than that. And the reason it goes no further is because in the case of Barnett no-one today can bring up anything about him by way of incriminating evidence that could not have been known and discussed between him and Abberline at the time.

In Barnett's own words:
"I went to the court, and there saw the police inspector, and told him who I was, and where I had been the previous night. They kept me about four hours, examined my clothes for bloodstains, and finally, finding the account of myself to be correct, let me go free."
Penny Illustrated Paper, 17 Nov. 1888.

Hardly the actions of a murderer, he came forward to the police, they didn't need to go looking for him, and they investigated him, so presumably the police checked out his story about where he had been playing whist & sleeping on the night in question (which maybe why he was held about 4 hrs).

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil H]

Yet, Wickerman that is exactly what you say it is - Barnett's words - and no doubt reported at a remove.

Hardly the actions of a murderer...

So tell me, please, what are the actions of a murderer? How would he, should he, act?

Has no murderer ever been known to go to the police, to give an account of himself?

What should keep him in the frame is NOT (IMHO) the fact that (as you put it) "no-one today can bring up anything about him by way of incriminating evidence that could not have been known and discussed between him and Abberline at the time".

What keeps him in the frame for me is that he had (as someone put it earlier in the thread) means, motive and opportunity; was in a position to know about the key issues; and that all we know about MJK comes to us as filtered through him - her past, her fears, her character.

I say again - I have no axe to grind here, no animus of any kind against Joe Barnett, but I don't think he can be exhonerated so easily.

Phil

[Sally]

So far as I can see, Joseph Barnett was never in trouble with the police, had no criminal record, and lived a mundane, ordinary life.

So if we want to suggest that he may have been responsible for Kelly's murder and mutilation, an extreme and extraordinary set of actions; we must view that occurrence as isolated, and uncharacteristic, with nothing supporting it on either side.

There is, as others have suggested, no evidence, nor even any suggestion of guilt attached to Joseph Barnett in reality. None.

[Phil H]

So if we want to suggest that he may have been responsible for Kelly's murder and mutilation, an extreme and extraordinary set of actions; we must view that occurrence as isolated, and uncharacteristic, with nothing supporting it on either side.

Isn't that almost by defintion what a "crime of passion" is? (I seem to recall that crimes of passion were exempted from the death penalty under french law until fairly recent times.

I could characterise (I don't, except here) Barnett as a man under increasing domestic pressure - his lover (who has the lease on the room in hER name apparently) continues to see an old lover of her own (who beats her up but Joe can do nothing about it). She has returned to her street-walking ways against his wishes (or so we are told) and they fight. She has women to stay in their room almost in defiance of him. Finally he has lost his job and leaves their accommodation. Yethe still - it seems loves this woman and cannot stop seeing her...

Could this not be a picture of a masculine man de-masculinised by a woman? A man who has reached the depths, of frustration, sexual (in both senses) and social. he has been emasculated, castrated almost by a woman. And he strikes out.

He would have no need to again, never had before - but that ONE NOvember night....

But I am not accusing him.

Phil

[Sally]

Ah Phil - glass half full, eh?

I accept that crimes of passion occur - but in this case it is the extremity of the crime and the fact that it resembled the murders of at leas three women shortly previous that deters me.

So, to the first of those - if Ordinary Joe wanted to do in his missus, I'm sure he could have done it. He could have gone in there, cut her throat while she was sleeping, and he probably would have got away with it too. But why take her apart? Why remove her organs?

Of course, some might say, 'copycat' murder - except that they tend to be pale imitations of the real thing, and this was the reverse. Alice McKenzie is a better candidate for a copycat - and even her I'm not sure about. Suppose Barnett killed Kelly in a fit of passion - so unplanned - you're then asking for him to have had the coolheadedness to devise a plot to make it look as though she was a victim of the Whitechapel Fiend - and then the detachment to carry out the actions which would achieve that - and then the sophistication required to successfully lie to the police for four hours.

Think it's a tall order, myself.

And then to the second - Kelly's slaying did resemble the murder of three other women. It was considered at the time to have been by the same hand that killed 5 women, possibly more. If it looks, walks and sounds like a duck, it probably is a duck!

Although I do sometimes wish my glass was half full as well.

[Heinrich]

.... Suppose Barnett killed Kelly in a fit of passion - so unplanned - you're then asking for him to have had the coolheadedness to devise a plot to make it look as though she was a victim of the Whitechapel Fiend - and then the detachment to carry out the actions which would achieve that - and then the sophistication required to successfully lie to the police for four hours.
....

A crime of passion is not necessarily one that is committed in a fit but one that is motivated by some deep emotion.
The planning required would be minimal. Familiar more than anyone else with Mary Kelly's lodging and her habits as well as the means to enter, all he had to do was to resolve to settle the score and then do so under cover of darkness in the dead of night.
Sociopaths do not need sophistication to be able to lie to gullible cops. They do it all the time.

[Phil H]

...it resembled the murders of at leas three women shortly previous that deters me.

Maybe because the perpetrator had READ about those murders (as Barnett said HE had done) but did not know exactly what the bodies looked like. So he did what he thought was right - and went too far.

You see, I don't perceive MJK's injuries as replicating or being similar to the others. They are much more passionate, frenzied and complete. If Joe had wanted to remove his ex-lover from the very face of existence, he could hardly have done a better job (not that I'm accusing him, for Caesar was an honourable man).

By the way - did not someone mistake Danny Barnett for his brother Joe? In the case of an alibi, is ther any mileage in Danny having taken Joe's place in the Victoria Home for a night? (I'm being frivolous now, but why not question the Joe is innocent brigade for a change?)

[GregBaron]

Not a typical domestic...

Hello all,

Regular Joe’s don’t commit what was done in Miller’s Court on that horrible morning. Rather than passion this was the definition of dispassion(nary a sound). Copycats exist, William Bury was probably one, but the exponential overboard indicates someone who enjoyed what they were doing. This was mental illness run amok. If you think any former amour capable of this sacrilege you have a dim view of human nature indeed. I say let poor Joe go………..!

Greg

[Sally]

What?

A crime of passion is not necessarily one that is committed in a fit but one that is motivated by some deep emotion.
The planning required would be minimal. Familiar more than anyone else with Mary Kelly's lodging and her habits as well as the means to enter, all he had to do was to resolve to settle the score and then do so under cover of darkness in the dead of night.
Sociopaths do not need sophistication to be able to lie to gullible cops. They do it all the time.

Heinrich - Ta very much for the lesson in cirmes of passion, much appreciated.

A. What score? So they fell out, he left - happens all the time (unlike the marvellous getting away with it practiced by sociopaths on an apparently daily basis)

B. Barnett was a sociopath? Who says so? Doesn't look like one to me - had a regular job, stable domestic setup etc. Not very sociopathiccy looking. Nope.

Idle speculation is fine, sure - it is such a pity when that tiresome little thing known as evidence gets in the way.

[Sally]

Phil...

Maybe because the perpetrator had READ about those murders (as Barnett said HE had done) but did not know exactly what the bodies looked like. So he did what he thought was right - and went too far.

Seriously?

You see, I don't perceive MJK's injuries as replicating or being similar to the others. They are much more passionate, frenzied and complete. If Joe had wanted to remove his ex-lover from the very face of existence, he could hardly have done a better job (not that I'm accusing him, for Caesar was an honourable man).

Yes Phil, I do agree, they are much 'more passionate, frenzied and complete' - but that must surely be because the Whitechapel Fiend had lots of time and opportunity to carry out his fantasy to it's completion - no wonder he was a happy man! I don't see that it implies a different hand.

By the way - did not someone mistake Danny Barnett for his brother Joe? In the case of an alibi, is ther any mileage in Danny having taken Joe's place in the Victoria Home for a night? (I'm being frivolous now, but why not question the Joe is innocent brigade for a change?

Stop that! You'll set the conspiracy theorists off again

( a frivolous response to a frivolous point )

[c.d.]

Hello Phil,

I don’t understand this reasoning at all. As far as we know, Barnett had no history of violence before or after Mary’s murder. Yet, you believe him to capable of this horrendous murder and mutilations. At the same time, you want to dismiss the probability that these mutilations were done by the same hand that had previously cut open women in Whitechapel, removed their organs and mutilated their faces. Sorry, but that goes by me completely.

c.d.

[Phil H]

Sally - you last post did not in any way refute mine, yours was just as subjective.

Yes Phil, I do agree, they are much 'more passionate, frenzied and complete' - but that must surely be because the Whitechapel Fiend had lots of time and opportunity to carry out his fantasy to it's completion - no wonder he was a happy man! I don't see that it implies a different hand.

You write "...MUST surely be..."!!! Utter speculation. You cannot remotely say that, and I have never reverted to such arguments. I speculate, but do not insist. This gives it away - you are arguing to a scenario you NEED to have be, despite your arguments to the contrary.

c.d.

I don’t understand this reasoning at all. As far as we know, Barnett had no history of violence before or after Mary’s murder. Yet, you believe him to capable of this horrendous murder and mutilations.

No - in so much as I argue only that he should not be ruled out as a suspect. NOT that I believe he did it. But yes, I suppose I must believe him "capable" of it" though I do not say he is my leading or even a suspect I would support strongly.

At the same time, you want to dismiss the probability that these mutilations were done by the same hand that had previously cut open women in Whitechapel, removed their organs and mutilated their faces.

I believe that that needs to be considered. I have not, for some time now, been wedded to a single killer theory and believe Stride also might well be a "domestic" (by Kidney).

Greg

Regular Joe’s don’t commit what was done in Miller’s Court on that horrible morning.

A somewhat absolute statement which i suspect cannot be supported.

Rather than passion this was the definition of dispassion(nary a sound).

Too much certainty for my taste. As was your statement:

This was mental illness run amok.

If you think any former amour capable of this sacrilege you have a dim view of human nature indeed.

No I am just a realist.

I say let poor Joe go………..! Pure sentimentality - why "poor Joe?" We know next to nothing about him except from his own mouth.

Finally, the Yorkshire Ripper was interviewed by police and dismissed, yet he did it. I get the feeling some posters on here would never have caught him, because if he was let go by the police he couldn't have done it. It's you, not me that needs to re-examine their stance, I think.

Good discussion,


Phil

[Supe]

Heinrich,

. . . rather I do have little regard for those who believe the police at the time were invincible

Who, in the nearly 123 years since the murders, has ever suggested the police were invincible (or, perhaps more accurately, omniscient or infallible)? By setting up such a false standard you evade the issue, just as you evaded my question about current success rates in catching serial killers.

As it is, you are clearly unaware of the rather exhausative efforts toward apprehension made by the Met in 1888 and have no interest in learning more.

Don.

[Sally]

You write "...MUST surely be..."!!! Utter speculation. You cannot remotely say that, and I have never reverted to such arguments. I speculate, but do not insist. This gives it away - you are arguing to a scenario you NEED to have be, despite your arguments to the contrary.

Nope, not at all - why should that be the case?

I knew I wouldn't get away with MUST - I had to give it a go, though

[caz]

...I argue only that he should not be ruled out as a suspect. NOT that I believe he did it.

Such passion, Phil. Such dedication - considering you don't believe Joe committed murder and there is also no chance of him being 'ruled out' by Ripperology anytime soon. So what's up?

...why "poor Joe?" We know next to nothing about him except from his own mouth.

You answered your own question. Joe is indeed unfortunate if he is to be suspected of murder solely on what came from his own mouth. That will never do. Considering he was eliminated from enquiries and was not known to have put a foot wrong for the rest of his natural, it seems perverse not to presume him innocent (while keeping him in mind as a potential suspect) unless or until some evidence comes to light from a source other than this poor man's own mouth, which challenges his story or proves that he lied. As it stands there is no independent evidence that he wasn't telling the truth.

Wasn't it the case in his day that the person in the dock was not allowed to speak on their own behalf? And wasn't that to protect them from incriminating themselves by mistake?

I agree it's a good discussion in itself, but I do wonder to what end.

Love,

Caz
X